Aronson was employed by New York City's Human Resource
Administration ("HRA") as a social worker from 1965 to 1966 and
later from August 1967 until June 1, 1983. Complaint ¶ 8. She
became a member of NYCERS on the date of her initial employment
by the City, October 5, 1965, and then again when she rejoined
HRA's employ on August 17, 1967. Originally Aronson enrolled in
a Career Pension Plan, known as the fractional plan, in which
Aronson duly chose to be transferred to Plan A.*fn2

On February 23, 1981, Aronson allegedly suffered an allergic
reaction resulting from exposure to tobacco smoke, fainted on
her jobsite, and was removed for medical attention. She never
returned to work. Complaint ¶¶ 10-12. She filed a claim for
Workers' Compensation benefits, which was initially denied by
the City but then granted on appeal in August of 1983. Benefits
were awarded retroactive to February 23, 1981, the date of her
fainting episode. She has continued receiving Workers'
Compensation benefits from that date to the present.

While her Workers' Compensation claim was pending, and
notwithstanding the bringing of that claim, the City commenced
disciplinary charges against her alleging that she had been
absent without first obtaining approved medical leave. On
October 14, 1982, a hearing was held by the HRA on the
recommendation that Aronson be dismissed. During the time of
the hearing, she was accompanied by a union representative.
After the hearing, the hearing officer recommended that Aronson
be dismissed from service, effective June 1, 1983. Complaint
¶¶ 15, 17; Defendant's Memo in Support of Dismissal, p. 4.
Since August 1983, Aronson has been and continues to receive
Workers' Compensation benefits retroactive to February 23,
1981, the day that she fainted. Complaint ¶ 18.

DISCUSSION

On May 13, 1988, nearly five years after her dismissal from
city-service, Aronson requested that NYCERS permit her to
withdraw her election of Plan A and allow her to elect the
55-year Increased-Service Fraction or Plan B so that she could
receive vested retirement benefits under § 13-173 of the New
York City Administrative Code ("Administrative Code"). NYCERS
refused to grant Aronson's request because § 13-173 requires
that a member be in Plan B before discontinuing city-service.

While conceding that the appropriate statute of limitations
for this action is three years, Aronson contends that the
statute did not begin to run against her until May of 1988,
which was when she first knew that she had been dropped from
membership in NYCERS. Aronson contends that she could not
possibly have known of her injury before May of 1988 because
that was when she was first informed that her application to
transfer from Plan A to Plan B was rejected.

NYCERS, on the other hand, insists that June 1, 1983, the
date of Aronson's termination from city-service, is the date
upon which the three year clock began to run, maintaining that
Aronson knew or had reason to know of any potential impairment
of her rights to elect certain retirement benefits upon her
severance from city employ. I agree. Apparently, Aronson was
aware that she was terminated from NYCERS coverage the first
time that she left city employ on August 17, 1966 and that she
was specifically reinstated upon rejoining HRA on August 17,
1967. Thus, she may be charged with knowing or she should have
known that upon her discharge for unauthorized medical leave,
it was likely that NYCERS coverage would not include an
election to transfer plans after her termination from
city-service.*fn3

NYCERS further avers that it was also on June 1, 1983 that
Aronson had reason to know of her injury. I agree. She was
originally enrolled in a pension plan and therefore had access
to all of the membership materials explaining the plans.
Apparently, upon request, all plan members are given a booklet
describing the plan in which they are enrolled. Kreisberg
Affid., Exh. A. This booklet contains the restrictions on
changing retirement plans at issue in this case. Because there
is no affirmative duty for NYCERS administrative staff to
inform members about the specifies of pension provisions beyond
providing the booklet, the availability of this information to
members charges Aronson with the information contained within
the booklets. See United States v. Sams, 521 F.2d 421, 429 (3d
Cir. 1975) (citing Japanese War Notes Claimants, 373 F.2d 356,
358-59, 178 Ct.Cl. 630 (toll exists where ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.